Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
:::Season renewals constitute significant information and therefore should be mentioned in the lead. Because season renewal content typically only consists of one or two cited sentences, as in the examples above, creating a separate section that effectively just duplicates content from the lead is redundant. Sections for upcoming seasons shouldn't be created unless they substantially expand on what is in the lead, and this generally doesn't happen until episodes are scheduled for the new season. I don't see a lot of harm in adding the season premiere year once episodes are scheduled, although Bignole does have a point when he says "You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred." In recent years there have been several cases where scheduled episodes have been cancelled or held over, so scheduling is not a guarantee that episodes will air, so perhaps we should err on the side of caution and do as Bignole suggests. Adding an end year to the subject header before the season has ended isn't WP:CRYSTAL if episodes have aired in the year. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC) |
:::Season renewals constitute significant information and therefore should be mentioned in the lead. Because season renewal content typically only consists of one or two cited sentences, as in the examples above, creating a separate section that effectively just duplicates content from the lead is redundant. Sections for upcoming seasons shouldn't be created unless they substantially expand on what is in the lead, and this generally doesn't happen until episodes are scheduled for the new season. I don't see a lot of harm in adding the season premiere year once episodes are scheduled, although Bignole does have a point when he says "You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred." In recent years there have been several cases where scheduled episodes have been cancelled or held over, so scheduling is not a guarantee that episodes will air, so perhaps we should err on the side of caution and do as Bignole suggests. Adding an end year to the subject header before the season has ended isn't WP:CRYSTAL if episodes have aired in the year. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|Cyphoidbomb}} Your suggestion was basically '''Option 1'''. Aussie and Big, I have always agreed with you in regards to not adding a year until eps actually air, but based on what we were discussing in the previous thread, this might have been more neutral ground I thought. But I would most definitely strong support the wording to be for once episodes actually air. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 04:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|Cyphoidbomb}} Your suggestion was basically '''Option 1'''. Aussie and Big, I have always agreed with you in regards to not adding a year until eps actually air, but based on what we were discussing in the previous thread, this might have been more neutral ground I thought. But I would most definitely strong support the wording to be for once episodes actually air. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 04:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Married names in the lead of fictional character articles == |
|||
Hey, everyone. Can we all agree to add something to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television]] about appropriate or inappropriate inclusion of married names in the lead of fictional character articles? I'll invite [[WP:TV]] to this discussion as well, but getting to the point: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=611843455&oldid=611842204#Peyton_Sawyer_article This recent matter] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jany90&curid=25680798&diff=611862606&oldid=611860604 this recent reply] with regard to the [[Peyton Sawyer]] article has spurred me on to seek some kind of guideline about married names in the lead. Like I stated in [[User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Peyton Sawyer article|this discussion]] (now archived)... When it comes to the married names, unless the married name is a notable aspect to include, especially if it has become the [[WP:Common name]], I don't think that it's good to have that [[WP:Spoiler]] material in the lead; this is because [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Contextual presentation|fiction is always in the present for readers/viewers]] and many people who have not watched the series or watched to a specific season will not be aware of that married name (unless they have come across a spoiler on that matter). We are supposed to stick to the common name for article titles in the case of fictional characters (and in general), and I feel the same about sticking to the common name in the lead. The infobox is for letting us know if a character was married. |
|||
This married name business is usually a fictional female character matter, and is usually [[WP:Inuniverse]] (editors treating these fictional women as though they are real). Take a look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Mayer&oldid=611405932 current state] of the [[Susan Mayer]] or even at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saved_by_the_Bell_characters&diff=611276837&oldid=610461026 this link], where I recently changed '''Kelly Kapowski-Morris''' back to '''Kelly Kapowski''' at [[List of Saved by the Bell characters]]; I highly doubt that many people are going to think of her with the married name "Morris" when they think of her name. Something needs to be done about this rampant type of [[WP:Fancruft]]. It's just as bad when editors change the female character article's title to the married name because the character got married; this happened more than once with the Susan Mayer article, other ''[[Desperate Housewives]]'' female character articles, and various other Wikipedia articles; luckily, in those cases, we have the WP:Common name policy to defer to. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 20:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:40, 6 June 2014
Television Project‑class | |||||||
|
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Network categories
Is it worth making a generic header template for the "programmes on network X" categories, to reflect WP:TVCATS, given that the categories seem to be applied inconsistently? Category:Cartoon Network programs has a clear "Do not add shows that were shown on a different network before the Cartoon Network." message, but Category:Channel 4 television programmes just says "This is a list of television programmes shown on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom.", and many others say nothing. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- McGeddon Any attempt to standardize the information around here is likely to get my support. But yeah, the categories are often questionably applied and definitely inconsistent. I witnessed a problem between two editors over that very same template (see: Category talk:Cartoon Network programs) because the category description didn't explicitly say one way or another if the category was intended to list all United States Cartoon Network programming, or ALL programming shown on Cartoon Network channels internationally. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps a template, so that this can be easily modified if consensus changes later? I'd suggest something based on the current wording - how about "This category lists shows that have regularly aired their first-run episodes on the [name of category] schedule. It does not list shows which first appeared on a different network."? --McGeddon (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've now gone ahead and created this at Template:Network-category. Feel free to start using it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Character Section on Page
Is the shortcut in the Character Infomation part of the page really necessary when it is just a redirect to the same section?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 17:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not meant to be a shortcut for this page, but an alert to what shortcut you can use if you were on another page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Contradictory template instructions
I've started a discussion about contradictory instructions at {{Infobox television}}. The discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
RFC: Years in season headings on list of episode pages
There has been an ongoing discussion on the List of Person of Interest episodes talk page regarding adding years to the season heading before air dates have been announced. This has gone dormant the past week or two, and I very much want a resolution to this debate, lest we deal with it once again next year. Based on the discussion, and given all the known info we get from the upfront events (for US television), here are two options that I am proposing be added to the MOS in the ""List of ..." structure". These options are the ones stated in the linked talk page discussion above, with slight formatting changes to show how it would be added to the MOS. (This can be tweaked to not seem as though it is biased to US shows only.)
- Option 1: When a new season is announced, a section heading for the upcoming season is used, however, no years are included in the heading. In the created section some form of the following sentence is acceptable to include, depending on when and what info is revealed: "In [month year], [network] renewed [show] for a [#] season.[ref] In [month year], it was announced the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season.[ref]", with the return year and television season link changing depending on when this is happening. For series airing on networks outside of the US that may not have network television schedule pages, that part from "as part..." on can be omitted. Again, this is using all information that has been revealed. When an episode table can be created for the season, citing reliable information that air dates are happening, a single year (ie a 22 episode show beginning in September 2014, would just get 2014 in the heading, until episodes air in 2015) can be added to the heading. Also, per WP:LEAD, the same prose sentence, or a variant, should be added to the lead.
- Option 2: When a new season is announced, a section heading is not used for the upcoming season. The following sentence is used in the lead, depending on when and what info is revealed: "In [month year], [network] renewed [show] for a [#] season.[ref] In [month year], it was announced the series would return in 2014 as part of the 2014–15 television season.[ref]", with the return year and television season link changing depending on when this is happening. A section heading, with a single year (ie a 22 episode show beginning in September 2014, would just get 2014 in the heading, until episodes air in 2015) can be added to the page once an episode table can be created for the season, citing reliable information that air dates are happening.
As a note, when these options were on the Person of Interest talk page, I had notified all the users in the discussion there to state an opinion on these options, and AussieLegend was the only to respond. Musdan77 also found the discussion and responded. Both chose Option 2, with Musdan77 not opposed to Option 1. I encourage both to restate their opinions here as well if they choose, as well as all those other users in the previous discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Option 1
Option 2
- Support per creator of RFC, and it removes redundancy, as option 1 would be featuring very similar info in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support as mentioned. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Comments
- I can see the benefit of option 2, but both say that you put a year in the header when episodes are announced for the current year, but only add the second year when they actually air in the second year. To me, no year should be present until they actually air in those years. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- My brain might be fried today; I'm having difficulty spotting the fundamental difference between the two proposals. What makes sense to me is this. When a season is picked up, add a new section header for that season, with a sourced write-up about the pickup. When a sourced premiere date is announced (even if rough), a year can be added to section header. (I may have changed my stance on this based on my realization that we create articles like The Tom and Jerry Show (2014 TV series) when the anticipated year is confirmed.) Adding an end year to the subject header before the series has ended seems like WP:CRYSTAL to me. My preferred evolution of the section would look like this:
- Season 2
- "February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.[12]
- Season 2 (2014)
- February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.[12] The season is slated for release Fall 2014.[13]
- Season 2 (2014)
- February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.[12] The season premiered August 22, 2014.[13]
- Season 2 (2014-2015)
- February 12, 2014, NBC announced that the series had been picked up for a second season.[12] The season premiered August 22, 2014[13] and concluded July 30, 2015.[14]
- Which of the two proposals is closest to what I've written? Did I just propose a third option? Are we making considerations for the insanely problematic world of children's TV, which is subject to inconsistency, lack of predictability, and which doesn't have "seasons" the way other networks do. I suppose I could be persuaded to yield on the point that the season has to end before the closing year is added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we create titles for pages with years because we have to disambiguate from other titles of the same name, and we cannot just up and move pages all the time (especially if they were multiple histories that have to be moved for different titles). Sections headers are different. You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred. It defeats the idea of this being an encyclopedia based on historical events (meaning they have already transpired). It pushes us to be more of a current events reporter. We have already pushed a lot in that direction with film and tv, because we chronicle events as they are announced (more than we should if you look at some pages that just go "X was announced on Date Y" every line. At some point, we have to recognize that that isn't the purpose of our information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Season renewals constitute significant information and therefore should be mentioned in the lead. Because season renewal content typically only consists of one or two cited sentences, as in the examples above, creating a separate section that effectively just duplicates content from the lead is redundant. Sections for upcoming seasons shouldn't be created unless they substantially expand on what is in the lead, and this generally doesn't happen until episodes are scheduled for the new season. I don't see a lot of harm in adding the season premiere year once episodes are scheduled, although Bignole does have a point when he says "You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred." In recent years there have been several cases where scheduled episodes have been cancelled or held over, so scheduling is not a guarantee that episodes will air, so perhaps we should err on the side of caution and do as Bignole suggests. Adding an end year to the subject header before the season has ended isn't WP:CRYSTAL if episodes have aired in the year. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Cyphoidbomb: Your suggestion was basically Option 1. Aussie and Big, I have always agreed with you in regards to not adding a year until eps actually air, but based on what we were discussing in the previous thread, this might have been more neutral ground I thought. But I would most definitely strong support the wording to be for once episodes actually air. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Season renewals constitute significant information and therefore should be mentioned in the lead. Because season renewal content typically only consists of one or two cited sentences, as in the examples above, creating a separate section that effectively just duplicates content from the lead is redundant. Sections for upcoming seasons shouldn't be created unless they substantially expand on what is in the lead, and this generally doesn't happen until episodes are scheduled for the new season. I don't see a lot of harm in adding the season premiere year once episodes are scheduled, although Bignole does have a point when he says "You shouldn't be identifying a date in a header unless that date has actually occurred." In recent years there have been several cases where scheduled episodes have been cancelled or held over, so scheduling is not a guarantee that episodes will air, so perhaps we should err on the side of caution and do as Bignole suggests. Adding an end year to the subject header before the season has ended isn't WP:CRYSTAL if episodes have aired in the year. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Married names in the lead of fictional character articles
Hey, everyone. Can we all agree to add something to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television about appropriate or inappropriate inclusion of married names in the lead of fictional character articles? I'll invite WP:TV to this discussion as well, but getting to the point: This recent matter and this recent reply with regard to the Peyton Sawyer article has spurred me on to seek some kind of guideline about married names in the lead. Like I stated in this discussion (now archived)... When it comes to the married names, unless the married name is a notable aspect to include, especially if it has become the WP:Common name, I don't think that it's good to have that WP:Spoiler material in the lead; this is because fiction is always in the present for readers/viewers and many people who have not watched the series or watched to a specific season will not be aware of that married name (unless they have come across a spoiler on that matter). We are supposed to stick to the common name for article titles in the case of fictional characters (and in general), and I feel the same about sticking to the common name in the lead. The infobox is for letting us know if a character was married.
This married name business is usually a fictional female character matter, and is usually WP:Inuniverse (editors treating these fictional women as though they are real). Take a look at the current state of the Susan Mayer or even at this link, where I recently changed Kelly Kapowski-Morris back to Kelly Kapowski at List of Saved by the Bell characters; I highly doubt that many people are going to think of her with the married name "Morris" when they think of her name. Something needs to be done about this rampant type of WP:Fancruft. It's just as bad when editors change the female character article's title to the married name because the character got married; this happened more than once with the Susan Mayer article, other Desperate Housewives female character articles, and various other Wikipedia articles; luckily, in those cases, we have the WP:Common name policy to defer to. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)